Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA (JEWISH REFUGEES).

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will now review their request to the Rumanian Government to refuse passage of Jewish refugees over the Polish-Rumanian frontier, where 600 are now starving at the present time?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): His Majesty's Government are not prepared in present circumstances to invite the Rumanian Government to modify their policy regarding the passage of Jewish refugees through Rumanian territory.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is it not a fact that the Rumanian policy was initiated under pressure from His Majesty's Government, and could we not cease this anti-Semitism now that we are really at war with Hitler?

Mr. Butler: We have left Rumanian policy to the discretion of the Rumanian Government. It is true that His Majesty's Government made a request to the Rumanian Government to that effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to consult the Press authorities concerning the essential qualifications of any additional staff appointed to the Ministry of Information?

Mr. Butler: I have been asked to reply. In the filling of all the more important posts in the Ministry of Information with which the Press are particularly concerned, close consultation took place with the chosen representatives of the Press; and this consultation will certainly con-

tinue as regards any future appointments of a similar nature.

Mr. Morgan: How does the Minister account for the unfortunate incident on Saturday when a London evening paper rang up and were asked who the P.A. were, and were then asked to put their story in such a form as to enable a certain individual to understand the nature of their inquiry?

Mr. Butler: I have not heard of this incident. I must say it surprises me very much. I will certainly investigate it. I am sure the Press Association is well known to everyone.

Viscountess Astor: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that until the new premises where the Ministry of Information is now established are complete the censorship should be left in the cabling offices, because in the last two or three days it has been first in one place and then another and has caused great—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to deal with aliens in time of war?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): The plans prepared are based on the principle that effective steps must be taken to render harmless all aliens who may be hostile to this country, but that there should be no unnecessary interference with other foreigners, of whom many are anxious to help this country. Certain security measures have already been taken. A number of aliens whose suspicious activities have been under observation are already under detention.
An Order-in-Council has been made amending the peace-time Aliens Order in a number of respects. The new Order requires all enemy aliens (that is, Germans and Austrians) who are over the age of 16 and do not intend to leave the country at once, to report to the police, and provides that they must obtain police permits for change of residence, for travelling, and for the possession of certain articles, including cameras


and motor cars. The new Order also provides that non-enemy aliens over 16 who are not already registered with the police must register if they intend to remain in the United Kingdom. It also gives a power of control over the departure of aliens. There is no intention of hindering generally the departure of those who wish to leave, but this power is required in special cases for security purposes. A large proportion of the Germans and Austrians at present in this country are refugees, and there will, I am sure, be a general desire to avoid treating as enemies those who are friendly to the country which has offered them asylum. At the same time, care must be taken to sift out any persons who, though claiming to be refugees, may not, in fact, be friendly to this country.
To avoid risks, I propose that, to supplement the information already in my possession, there shall be an immediate review of all Germans and Austrians in this country, and I am asking a number of men with legal experience to assist me in this matter. These examiners will sit not only in London but in the provinces, and each of them will examine all cases in the district assigned to him with a view to considering which of these can properly be left at large and which should be interned or subjected to other restrictions. I am also arranging for a similar review, by a special tribunal, of all Czechs-Slovaks. Citizens of the former republic of Czecho-Slovakia will not be treated as enemy aliens—

Mr. Dalton: This is reparation for Munich.

Sir J. Anderson: —although there may be amongst them certain individuals who will be subjected to restrictions similar to those applicable to enemy aliens.
There will be an increasing demand for labour and services of all kinds, and I am anxious that use shall be made of the help of friendly aliens in any direction in which their assistance may be advantageous to this country. For this purpose, I am in consultation with the Minister of Labour as to the manner in which use can be made of the services of aliens who are not at present at liberty to take employment. I hope it may be possible to arrange that aliens who are friendly to this country

may be found employment through the Employment Exchanges. By use of the exchanges, their services can be directed to appropriate channels, and any danger of their employment interfering with the interests of British subjects can be obviated.
As regards German and Austrian women in domestic employment who do not return home, there are many whose presence here need cause no anxiety, and any general measure depriving householders of their services would cause unnecessary difficulties. The policy will be, by a careful review of individual cases, to take appropriate precautions as regards any whose friendliness to this country may be in doubt.
British-born women who have lost British nationality by marriage to a foreigner are at present exempted from the requirement to register with the police. In cases of British-born women who are of German or Austrian nationality by marriage it will no longer be possible to maintain this general exemption. Such women must now report to the police, but in any exceptional case, such, for example, as that of a woman who has for some time been separated from her German husband, it will be open to the police to recommend that she be exempted from the requirements of the new Order.

Mr. Greenwood: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit of his reply, and may I put this question, quite simply? Am I to take it that the policy of His Majesty's Government is to draw a sharp distinction between those who are the victims of the system we are now fighting, and those who may be properly under suspicion?

Sir J. Anderson: That very accurately describes the spirit that we have endeavoured to introduce into this statement.

Colonel Wedgwood: Into which category—Czechs or Germans—do the stateless Jews come?

Sir J. Anderson: I must ask for notice of that question—or, at any rate, I will give an undertaking to look into it, but I would rather not reply generally straight away.

Sir Francis Fremantle: In the case of any suspected alien who has been arrested


and interned and who maintains his innocence, what power is there for full consideration to be given to his case?

Sir J. Anderson: We propose to set up an advisory committee to hear any representations from internees and to advise the Secretary of State whether they can properly be released.

Mr. Dalton: Does that include representations by Members of this House who have personal knowledge of such people and can vouch for their reliability?

Sir J. Anderson: Every relevant consideration will be taken into account.

Miss Rathbone: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of drawing a distinction between Austrians and Germans and placing the Austrians in the same category as Czecho-Slovaks, seeing that their country was taken from them without their consent? Is he aware that there is a very strong feeling to that effect among the Austrian community, who are only too anxious to serve this country?

Sir J. Anderson: I can give the House an assurance that there will be every desire, while keeping considerations of security paramount, to show sympathy for the kind of case that the hon. Lady has in mind, but sweeping distinctions of the kind she suggested, automatically applied, would not be compatible with the public interest.

Miss Wilkinson: With regard to women who have married enemy aliens, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these women are now returning of their own free will, even though they have not been separated from their husbands for a long time, and would it not be better not to have a stereotyped rule such as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, as many of these women to whom I have referred have no longer any sympathy with Germany?

Sir J. Anderson: That certainly will be considered. Many of these cases are cases for which we must have every sympathy. But the House will realise that the new obligation is merely to keep the authorities informed.

Sir John Haslam: Can my right hon. Friend give the position of Palestinian subjects or other subjects in Mandated Territories?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not sure how that question arises, but I will look into it.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the position of those persons who have applied for naturalisation and whose applications are still under consideration? Will the consideration of these applications be expedited?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not know that I can promise that the consideration will be expedited. On the other hand, I do not contemplate that it will be necessary to put a stop altogether to the consideration of such applications.

Major Procter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hundreds of Czech subjects in this country and many thousands abroad are prepared to fight for this country, and has any decision been come to on the matter?

Mr. Cluse: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that where aliens are proved to be enemy aliens and have to be interned, they will be put to productive work instead of acting as parasites on the nation?

Sir J. Anderson: That will be considered.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman feels —and quite rightly—that a British woman married to a German or an Austrian may be influenced in some way, and, therefore, should register as an alien, does he not think—and I put this in all seriousness—that surely the same consideration should be applied in the case of a British man married to a German woman?

Sir J. Anderson: British subjects are not, as such, wholly exempted from all scrutiny from the standpoint of security.

Oral Answers to Questions — TORPEDOING OF STEAMSHIP "ATHENIA."

Mr. A. V. Alexander: (by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information regarding the sinking of the steamship "Athenia," on 3rd September?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill): I regret to inform the House that a signal was received in the Admiralty at about 11 p.m. last night


giving the information that the steamship "Athenia" had been torpedoed in a position about 200 miles north-west of Ireland at 8.59 p.m. Orders had already been given by local Commanders for destroyers to proceed to her assistance, and by shortly after midnight four destroyers were proceeding at high speed towards the position. They should have been near the position by about 10 a.m. this morning. A further signal was received from the Master of the ''Athenia'' at about 1 a.m. this morning stating that there were 1,400 passengers, some of whom were still on board, and that the ship was sinking fast.
The "Athenia," a ship of 15,000 tons and belonging to the Donaldson Lines, left Liverpool on Saturday afternoon, the 2nd September, bound for Montreal. She had been ordered to steer on a course well off her normal track, and would presumably have been steaming at about 15 knots. She had 1,400 passengers on board, amongst whom were over 300 United States citizens.
It will be recollected that in 1935 Germany agreed to abide by Part 4 of the London Naval Treaty of 1930 in perpetuity, and was one of the first Powers to do so. These articles state that the following are accepted as established rules of international law:—
"(i) With regard to merchant ships, submarines must conform to the rules of international law to which surface vessels are subject.
(ii) In particular, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned or of active resistance to visit and search, a warship, whether surface or submarine, may not sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant ship without having first placed passengers, crew and ships papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ships boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured, in the existing sea and weather conditions, or proximity of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board."
That is the law. Since the 26th August all British merchant ships in the Atlantic have been diverted from their normal routes. Orders were given for the institution of convoy on one route as soon as war was declared. Of course it will take a little time to institute a general system of convoy, but that is being pressed to the utmost.
A message has been received in the Admiralty this morning from the master of the "Athenia" stating that the passengers and crew, except those killed by the explosion, had taken to the boats and had been picked up by various ships. The fortunate escape of the survivors of the outrage does not alter the fact that under no circumstances can open boats 200 miles from land be regarded as a place of safety.

Mr. Alexander: Before I put one or two supplementary questions to the First Lord, whose appearance in this position we all welcome at this stage, may I say with what profound horror, disgust and indignation all sections of the population will greet this new act by Germans against our Mercantile Marine? We wish to express our utmost sympathy with those, no matter to whatever nationality they belong, who have suffered as a result of this unpardonable outrage. May I ask the First Lord whether he can tell us if it is certain in the minds of the Board of Admiralty that the convoy system can be quickly and efficiently expanded to cover all reasonable precautions on these routes within a very short time? We, of course, have in mind that the war in Poland started as early as Friday morning last, and we are anxious that at this stage, without appearing to be critical, that that convoy system should be perfected at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Churchill: I need scarcely say that the utmost endeavours will be used to employ all our means of escorts to their fullest possible capacity, and to adopt such other methods as may be necessary for vessels which fall outside the class and cannot at this moment be convoyed. We have every belief that the convoy system will be brought into complete operation at a comparatively early date. In the meanwhile all that is possible is being done.

Mr. Alexander: May I ask whether immediate steps will be taken through the American Embassy in charge of our affairs in Berlin to draw immediate attention to this outrageous breaking of the Submarine Convention by Germany?

Mr. Churchill: There are several legal issues which arise from this outrage, but I do not feel able to speak upon them particularly at this moment. A question,


perhaps, to-morrow might elucidate the legal or juridical aspects involved.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask a question which the First Lord may not be able immediately to answer but to which he might give his consideration? In order to afford an assurance to the men of the Mercantile Marine that their interests will be properly safeguarded, are we to understand that the measures devised in connection with the insurance of personal effects and the payment of compensation which were agreed to in the last few days will come into operation in respect of any of the men affected by this disaster?

Mr. Churchill: If the hon. Gentleman will put that question to me on the next opportunity in the House, I will see that I am in a position to answer it.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say how many seamen have lost their lives in the disaster and how many passengers?

Mr. Churchill: I have given to the House the whole of the information in ray possession.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Can my right hon. Friend say whether

this ship was fitted with defensive armament, and will he make it clear that the ship was torpedoed without any warning whatever?

Mr. Churchill: It certainly was torpedoed without the slightest warning, in circumstances which the whole opinion of the world after the late War, in which Germany concurred, stigmatised as inhumane. According to my present information—I must confess that I have not had any opportunity of confirming it precisely—the ship was not in any way an auxiliary cruiser.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in establishing the convoy system, which he contemplates at the earliest possible date, he will have some regard to a method of sorting ships for uniform speed and not, as on the last occasion, have a system under which the speed of the slowest ship was the speed of the whole of the ships in the convoy? If cargo liners could be brought together into the convoy system on the basis of something like uniform speed, it might do a great deal towards minimising the submarine peril.

Mr. Churchill: indicated assent.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.12 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It has already been decided that in connection with the establishment of a system of national registration in the event of emergency the duty of carrying out the registration was to be entrusted to the Minister of Health in England and Wales and to the Secretary of State for Scotland as being the two Ministers responsible for the census. It has further been decided to adopt the technique of the census for collecting the information necessary to the compilation of a national register. The fact that the Census Act of 1920 made continuing provision for the compilation of population statistics has enabled a great amount of preparation to be made for a national register without requiring recourse to fresh legislation. Consequently the Bill which I am introducing to-day is one to put into operation a piece of machinery which has been carefully worked out in preparation for just such an emergency as that in which we now find ourselves. There is no doubt as to the necessity for a national register. I think that is agreed in all parts of the House. In time of war up-to-date statistics as to man-power and as to the general population both on the producing and the consuming side of the nation's activities are absolutely essential.
The only statistics now available in the country are those of the 1931 census. Therefore, the object of this Bill may very reasonably be stated as that of producing up-to-date population statistics in substitution for the stale census statistics of 1931, in order that we may make the best use possible of the man-power and the woman-power available for our national activities, and also to facilitate other measures such, for instance, as the distribution of food, food supplies, and the preservation of contact between members of families which have been dispersed for example under the evacuation scheme. The national register will cover all persons in the United Kingdom at the

appointed time with the exception of members of the armed forces and the Mercantile Marine. We are using the technique of the census and have divided up Great Britain into a great number of small districts, 65,000 in all. In each district there will be an enumerator, who has already been chosen and instructed. The enumerator himself or herself will distribute the returns shortly before the zero date—that is to say National Registration Day, the day on which each person must register. The enumerator will personally collect the returns immediately after the zero date.
Clause 3 makes provision for the creation of the enumeration districts and the larger areas comprising a group of enumeration districts. The enumerators will be under the supervision of an officer in charge of the area. The enumerator will first go round with the returns to every household in his particular district, and will distribute the form and give notice that he will come back the next week to collect it and to check it with the householder to see that it is properly filled up. When the enumerator pays his second visit for the collection of the form he will leave an identity card, which will be personal to each individual. An identity card will have to be left for every person. Nothing could be more useful and more essential than such a card. It will afford means by which if families become separated they can easily be checked off. For instance, a lost child whose parents may have moved since the child was evacuated could very easily be traced and parents and child could be brought into touch with each other.

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Gentleman says that the enumerator will discuss the manner of drawing up the form before the zero date. May I take it that if the householder wants information, the enumerator will be prepared to wait there in order to give the necessary information?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. That is the object of the personal visit. It will afford an opportunity whereby the enumerator can explain, if necessary, the purpose of the form and the proper way to answer the questions. It may well be found that the householder has not been able to grasp the instructions and has filled up the form wrongly. The collection of the form will afford a second opportunity


for another personal visit of the enumerator, and will ensure that the form has been filled up correctly to comply with the requirements and to supply the information sought. That is the gist and purpose of the Bill.
Clause 4 makes provision for keeping the register up to date when it has been once compiled. It enables returns to be made of changes in particulars on the register, such as persons newly entering into or passing out of the scope of the register. For example, it will provide for removals, for the 'registration of newly-born children, of people landing from abroad, of people who have been discharged from the armed forces, where they did not come into the register, and of those who have passed from the register through death, through going abroad or passing into the armed forces, and so on. The Board of Trade will establish a Mercantile Marine register for certain classes of the Mercantile Marine, which will be operated by the Marine Department of the Board of Trade. Persons entering the Mercantile Marine will pass out of the National Register on to the Mercantile Register, and vice versa.
Clause 6 provides for the identity card and the conditions as to its custody, its renewal if lost, and its production on authorised demand. The uniformity of the procedure throughout the whole of the United Kingdom will be ensured by joint regulations which will be made by "The Ministers," namely, the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and with respect to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, the Home Secretary.

Mr. Charles Williams: In dealing with the Mercantile Marine where do inshore fishermen come in?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid I cannot answer that question offhand, but I will look into the matter and let the hon. Member know. The provisions in Clause 3 have, as I have said, already been largely anticipated under the authority of the Census Act of 1920. The actual management of the enumeration has been entrusted in England and Wales to the clerks of the councils of the boroughs, the urban districts and the rural districts, who are appointed for this purpose as the registration officers, and in Scotland and the Isle of Man to the local

registrars. The management of the local maintenance registers afterwards is being entrusted to the clerks of the appropriate councils appointed as the registration officers. Obviously an organisation of that kind has taken some time to build up, but it is in existence, and when the Bill is passed registration can be taken 12 days after the decision to compile a national register has been made. All that is needed after the Bill is passed is eight days to send out the papers to the enumerators and five days to distribute them to householders. Zero day will be when the public have to fill up the forms, and in the following week the enumerators will collect the forms and issue the identity cards. All the information will then be in the hands of the authorities and can be entered on the central register. That is all the detail which I desire to put before the House.
I should like to call particular attention to the usefulness of the identity cards in present circumstances. Each identity card will bear a code consisting of four letters and two numbers—A, B, C, D, 12, for example—which will be peculiar to the individual. Thus the register will identify each one of the 46,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom. Nothing could be more useful at the present moment than that young John Smith who has been moved to the Cotswolds or to Norfolk under an evacuation scheme should have an identity card which distinguishes him clearly from any other John Smith in the whole of the United Kingdom, and also that his father, William Smith, should have the same kind of identity card identifying him from any other William Smith. It means that the two can be brought into touch even though William Smith may move to Coventry, to Glasgow or to Bristol, on munition work for example, or may go overseas in the Mercantile Marine.

Mr. Gallacher: What about the Schedule?

Mr. Elliot: As soon as the Bill is on the Statute Book I shall be prepared to show hon. Members the terms of the regulations. The particulars required on the returns are given briefly in the Schedule to the Bill. The returns will contain only simple questions requiring information on points which we should all expect to find in such a return. I hope that with this


information the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill.

3.25 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: The subject of a national register has, fortunately for the present Debate, been fully discussed in this House long before the outbreak of war. It happened that some hon. Members 12 months ago demanded that a national register should be created then, and in the Debates on that occasion the broad outline of this Bill was foreshadowed. I have also noticed that in the last month the Press, and particularly the "Times," have had almost all the details which the right hon. Gentleman has just given to the House, but in one respect the right hon. Gentleman has announced something which is even more complete than that which has been stated in the Press. It was stated that from the word "Go" the national register would be complete in three weeks. I have heard a statement that it could be completed in a fortnight, but I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it can be completed in 12 days. I think it is right at this moment to express satisfaction with the work of the Department concerned. It shows efficiency and effectiveness which are very reassuring in the general situation. Looking back on the past discussions, there is one decision which time has justified. It is now evident that it was better to wait for the national register until the outbreak of war, and I think the House was right in not agreeing with those who wanted a register made 12 months ago.
As a matter of fact, a great redistribution of the population is now taking place, and although the register contains provisions for correcting the redistribution, it is obviously far better to wait until the main stages of the redistribution have settled down. We have been told that one of the reasons for the register was the needs of compulsory service, but the Minister for War now tells us that for these needs it will not be wanted for a considerable time. Another reason given was on account of rationing, and on that I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give the House an assurance. Of course rationing, no doubt, will before long be more general and complete, but before the register is finished there may be a temporary shortage of certain commodities. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to

give the House an assurance that if that is so there will be preliminary rationing before the completion of the register in order that these articles may be conserved.

Mr. Elliot: I can give that assurance now. If necessary, part rationing can take place before the date when the register is completed. We need not wait merely because there is this more detailed scheme coming afterwards. Obviously, it is desirable that no temporary embarrassment should be caused to the citizens because a more general scheme is coming along later.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I am glad to have had that answer, and with that answer I may say that, so far as my hon. Friends are concerned, the Second Reading of the Bill need not entail any lengthy discussion.

3.30 p.m.

Sir Edward Grigg: I am glad to learn from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that the machinery necessary to bring the register into operation immediately is ready. I am one of those who for a long time have agitated for this machinery to be at least ready against an emergency. There was a time when we were told that even the machinery could not be prepared before an emergency arose, but I am glad that that opinion has been revised. With regard to the making of the register now, I, personally, regret that John Smith should not have been able to take his identity card with him immediately on going to new quarters where he may be away from his family. I should like to have a little more information on one matter. It is clear from the statement of the Minister that the actual taking of the register should be complete within 12 days from the time the order is given. I presume my right hon. Friend means that that is the time when the cards will be collected in the hands of the collectors. Of course, that is not the date at which the register will be complete. There will remain all the work of tabulating the cards and getting out the information which the register will be supposed to contain. I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would tell us when, after the 12 days necessary to take the register, we may count on the register being available for use.

3.32 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I wish to congratulate the Government on being ready with this Bill, which, I think, will have a comparatively easy passage through the House. With great respect to the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), I think that, on the whole, the balance of advantage is weighted on the side of taking the register after war rather than before it. If it had been taken before, obviously, war conditions would have upset the information somewhat; for instance, there have been immense changes in the movement of population during the last few days, and those changes will continue. I am glad the Government have decided to do this work through the local government authorities, for that, of course, is what it amounts to when they decide to make the clerks of boroughs and counties the principal enumerators. The local authorities are accustomed to this type of work in making up the Parliamentary register; they have accumulated experience, they have men who are already trained in the work, and efficiency and success will be assured by using that machinery rather than going back to the old precedents followed in making up the register for population purposes.
I attach great importance to the character and form of the regulations, which, I assume, are in draft already. I hope the House will have an opportunity of seeing them at an early date. I make that remark from a constructive point of view. In the light of war conditions, I hope that the information to be obtained will be much larger than it would have been if a register of this character had been taken in peace conditions. There is an immense amount of voluntary service being given throughout the land. In most parts of London, immense numbers of men and women are giving their services freely, as special constables, air raid wardens, in the social services, and in a hundred and one capacities. I suggest that space should be provided on the registration forms for persons to supply information as to the voluntary services they are giving. We should then have an opportunity of knowing, in respect of each area, what work is being done voluntarily by the persons to be registered.

Sir E. Grigg: That is in the Bill.

Sir P. Harris: The hon. Member says that will be done. If so, I am glad to know it. There should be, also, an opportunity for people to say what voluntary service they are willing or desire to do. All hon. Members have been receiving letters from all over the country from men and women who are anxious and eager to give voluntary service in one form or another. That applies specially to the older members of the population. Many of us are almost embarrassed to know where to direct these people to go and offer their services. If the register contained information not only as to what people are doing but what they are anxious to do in future, I think it would be a great help to the Government and would set aside those people who want to give their service to the State in its hour of need.
There are in this country a great number of people having highly technical qualifications. During the last War, only too often those technical qualifications were wasted. Perhaps because of modesty, or because of ignorance of the procedure to be followed, those services were often not used, and those people were diverted to less useful occupations. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that the registration cards should be so drawn that not only the occupation but the kind of work which the person is anxious to do in the conditions of the day should be available to the State in a convenient form. I hope that something of that kind will be done. Last night a suggestion was made by an hon. Member above the Gangway on this side that the services of Members of Parliament should be used in many ways in addition to their performing their duties as Members. The same thing applies equally to a large percentage of the population. If the machinery of the register could be used to canalise that information, it would be a very great contribution to the successful prosecution of the war.

3.37. p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) must be very proud that this Bill is before the House to-day. For two years he has urged the setting up of a national register. On a great many occasions I have tried to find out from him and from others


what would be the purpose of such a register, but I have never yet discovered. This is not an occasion for resisting Measures proposed by the Government; we can only sign on the dotted line, for debate is a waste of time. [Interruption.] Largely, because obviously we have to get the Measures through quickly. In due course, I hope that all the legislation we have passed in such a great hurry will be critically examined. Obviously, it will need amendment. I am surprised that many of these Bills are being produced, because I think that a great deal of what they do could be done under the Emergency Powers Act by means of regulations.
What this Bill is for, I have not the faintest idea. The Minister of Health says that he wants it for rationing purposes. Why? There is no difficulty in finding out approximately what is the population in any district. If the Minister got the local authority on the telephone, they would tell him immediately. How long will it take for it to be done by this means? How long will it be before the register is completed? It may be quite a good idea to give identity cards to people, so that if one wants to know who a person is, that person will be able to produce a paper to prove his identity. But how long will it take to sort out 48,000,000 cards? When they are sorted out, what is to be done with them? Nobody knows. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said that we do not want round pegs in square holes, and that these cards will prevent that. Will they? How many questions would the hon. Baronet need to answer in order that I, who presumably had never seen him, examining his card —without his photograph, which I presume would not be attached—might be able to fit the square peg precisely into the hole to which it belongs? The whole thing is unadulterated nonsense, but the Minister wants the Bill and he will get the Bill, and he will employ thousands of people in going round the houses and filling in masses of particulars which will be of no use to any human being. He will have thousands of girls, presumably, sitting in front of tabulating machines and punching innumerable holes in small cards so that it will be possible to find out how

many ladies with size-eight feet, have pink eyes.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Why pink eyes?

Sir H. Williams: That is the kind of thing it will be. You turn a handle and immediately get some information of that kind which is supposed to be of some use to somebody. You can put any sort of nonsense into regulations if you try hard enough, especially at a time like this when people are not too critical. This is one of the things which a long agitation has induced the Government to accept, when they had not the guts to stand up at the right time and say that it was nonsense. When we introduced conscription what were people asked to do? They were asked to register themselves, and the British people are so law-abiding that they did so. That was a remarkable achievement under the Military Training Act. The men registered for a specific purpose, when they were asked to do so. Now we have passed a general Conscription Act covering the ages 18 to 41. In due course, it will be necessary to call up particular classes, but if you ask the people in a class to register, the bulk of them will do so and will notify the addresses at which they are then living.
This is not only a question of the registration of 48,000,000 people. People will be moving about all the time. This will be a gigantic organisation. I ask hon. Members to think how many questions they would have to ask themselves, before they could satisfy someone who had never seen them, on all the points which have been mentioned, in such a way that some use could be made of the information. If it is said that this is for the purpose of rationing, then that is just nonsense. The quickest way to find out where there is a shortage of food is by means of the complaints which will reach the appropriate department. That will be a much quicker method than the method of statistics. If there is a shortage of sugar in Croydon, my right hon. Friend will hear from me about it much more quickly than he will find it out from statistics—and he will hear about it, perhaps, in plainer terms which will probably produce better results.
The argument about rationing means nothing, and the argument about placing people in the right jobs means nothing.


If you want 500 people to do navy work at a particular point, there are two ways of getting them. You can go to a great department—which, incidentally, may be bombed in the meantime—where there are all these cards and have them examined in order to find 500 men in a certain area, say, within so many miles of Charing Cross, who will do this work. That will take some days. But if you simply put up a notice outside the Employment Exchange, you will get them with much greater rapidity. You will get them by self-selection, which will be much quicker than selection by civil servants, however eminent, sitting in a Government Department with all these cards in front of them.
I suppose in order to please my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) we shall have to spend many tens of thousands of pounds in compiling this national register, but I hope we shall not be too much impressed by it. I hope hon. Members will realise that a great deal of it is pure unadulterated nonsense, and that it will serve no great purpose. It would be better, indeed, if at birth we could all be branded with a number, like a motor-car number, on some part of the anatomy not too visible. That would avoid the necessity, for instance, of calling the banns of marriage in church. It would only be necessary to ascertain beforehand whether No. X1234 was married already, and if he or she were not married then that would entitle the authorities to issue the necessary warrant. We are all registered when we are born, and perhaps the hon. Member opposite thinks that if he could have been registered by a number and not merely by a name, all his problems would be solved. I do not intend to vote against any Measure proposed by the Government at this time, but I think it well that those of us, who hold the view that some of the Measures which are being brought forward with such rapidity may be unnecessary; that some of them may be a waste of time and, what is even worse at this juncture, a waste of national effort and expenditure, should express that view.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I hate to agree with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), but I find myself in company with him on this matter. I wish

to refer to one or two of the difficulties which will arise from putting this register into operation at this stage. The Minister said that this could be done in 12 days and my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) complimented him on his estimate. I think it a mistake to pass compliments on estimates. It is better to await the achievement before offering any compliments. This all depends on the number of enumerators. If my right hon. Friend had been as near to the electorate as I have been compelled to be; if he had been called upon to do his own canvassing and to send out forms, he would know that it is impossible to expect people to fill up forms requiring the answers to so many questions and return them within two days. I have a great deal of admiration for our education system and I have tried to do something to improve it, but we have not reached the stage yet, when we can expect that to be done.
This brings me to the question of the enumerators. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) mentioned the voluntary work which is being done at the present time. I fear that by instituting this register at this moment you are likely to put sand in the wheels of that work. The people who will be appointed as enumerators will not be those who have been doing voluntary work of this sort. In the past few days many questions have had to be asked of people, particularly in the reception areas, and many people have been voluntarily giving time and labour to the work of obtaining those particulars. They have done so at great inconvenience and sacrifice to themselves. Those people will now find others coming along and receiving payment for work of the same kind—indeed work which is, in my judgment, much pleasanter and not nearly so important as the work which they have been doing voluntarily. I hope that if this register is to be set up, great care will be exercised in the appointment of enumerators. A lot of grumbling is going on now because of the fact that people who are willing to do so are being allowed to work for nothing, while others who do the minimum amount of work receive the maximum amount of pay for it. Something was said here the other day about profiteering. There can be just as much profiteering in a matter of this kind as in selling an article at an excessive price.

3.48 p.m.

Sir F. Fremantle: I do not wish to make a long speech such as I might be encouraged to make if this were a debating society, in reply to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams).

Sir H. Williams: Why a debating society?

Sir F. Fremantle: Because I think the points which the hon. Member raised were points for a debating society and not for this House at this time.

Miss Wilkinson: On a point of Order. Is not this room in which we are speaking called a debating chamber?

Mr. Speaker: I have heard it called by that term.

Sir F. Fremantle: I agree with the hon. Member for South Croydon that we do not want to increase unnecessarily statistics and forms. One has to guard against that at a time like the present, when there is a general tendency, on the part of efficiently working government, towards the introduction of forms. But I believe that this register if set up in the proper way will be useful to all those who are concerned with the organisation of our civil life in regard to air raid precautions and other matters in which we are necessarily involved at the present time. I wish to ask whether the organisation which is to be set up will interfere with or impair in any way the enormous and historic Census which is to be taken in 1941? Apparently the figures which are to be taken under this register are to be so drawn up as to be in conformity with certain particulars of the ordinary Census, and are to be kept up to date. Therefore, presumably they will be in substitution, in those respects, for the Census of 1041. Is it proposed in the 1941 Census to duplicate this inquiry, which would seem to be unnecessary? If it is not duplicated, may I ask whether that Census, with all the other particulars which are so invaluable, not merely for present, but for permanent purposes, as a register of the conditions of the people, will still be maintained? We want to know that, not merely in case of the time of peace which we hope we shall have in 1941, but in case the war is still on then, as we sincerely hope it will not be.
I will refer to only two other points. They might come up in Committee, but I think they might be got over now. On this question of a register, you are making some exceptions for the Mercantile Marine, and I should like to know whether the very complete register that has been in existence for the last 18 months, and which has been kept up to date, for the medical profession will be duplicated, or whether the British Medical Association register will be incorporated in this census and will no longer be necessary, or whether the fresh information is to be kept up, independent of the registration that has already been done by the medical profession, so that there will be a duplication of the machinery. This point does not apply only to the medical profession, because there are one or two other professions that have followed suit, though I am glad to say that I think the medical profession was first in the field and has done the work most thoroughly.
There is one other point. Reference has been made to identity cards, and the Minister has made a considerable point about their value. It is all very well to claim the value of the identity cards as between Johnnie Smith and his father when those cards are clean and new, but these cards will not remain new, least of all in Johnnie Smith's possession after he has been away to the seaside or to the country for some months, where they have been subjected to the difficulties of the weather, not to mention the washtub.

Mr. Magnay: Why does the hon. Member mention John Smith? Why not mention John Fremantle?

Sir F. Fremantle: I mentioned John Smith because the right hon. Gentleman used the instance of John Smith. I raised a question some six months ago of the introduction of identity discs. Our minds go back—those of us who served in the last War—to the identity discs of those days, which were small bits of metal that were hung round the neck, about the size of a sixpence or a shilling. They are permanent, and they are easily hung and kept under the clothing, without being noticed, but what will happen to these identity cards? If they are hung round a child's neck, they will not remain there for very long, and still less will they remain decipherable. Therefore, I hope we may get some possibility of identity discs


being issued instead of identity cards. In those conditions—and I hope this registration will go through—I believe it will be useful as long as we make it thorough and complete and put it out in a form that is useful for ordinary purposes, not only by the State, as the hon. Baronet opposite said, but also for the general public and the administrative services.

3.54 p.m.

Colonel Arthur Evans: I should like to support the plea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) with regard particularly to the identity discs. One knows from one's experience in the Forces, and particularly in the Territorials, that some identity cards are apt to get lost, whereas the identity discs which they had at the beginning of the last War generally remained with them on their persons until they were discharged. I do not think it is difficult to visualise circumstances whereby the all-important registration card will get lost or mislaid, and the expense to which the State has been put will be rendered of no avail.
I rose, however, for a few minutes, to put to my right hon. Friend a specific point, and an important point, as to the case of the registration of British coloured subjects domiciled in this country. My right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for the Home Department are perfectly well aware of the great difficulties which were experienced by their Departments in regard to this particular problem after the last War. We have a lot of coloured subjects registered in the ports of Britain who are, for all practical purposes, British subjects. They served in the last War in the British Mercantile Marine with great distinction. Many of them are proud possessors of medals gained in the last War, and yet they are still registered as aliens, and I do hope that under this new Measure the coloured subjects to whom I have referred will not be so registered. Some of them, of course, come under the category of British-protected subjects, and although they are regarded as British subjects from the point of view of the British shipping subsidy and the trade union regulations, nevertheless they are registered as aliens. If we are to look in the future, as we did in the past, to these men for the same valuable assistance as they ren-

dered in our British Mercantile Marine, I hope my right hon. Friend will take some care to see that proper regard is had to their national status, if, owing to conditions outside their own control, they are unable to produce birth certificates from a colony dating back 30 or 40 years because at that time births were not registered.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: I will not go into the merits of the Bill, but I think I am correct in saying that, in anticipating this legislation, the right hon. Gentleman asked the town clerks and the local authorities of the country to establish some form of committee, and I regret to say that in one particular case that is within my knowledge, when the council met, they were not in a great hurry to set up a committee, and I think they were treated in a rather cavalier fashion when other people were appointed on the committee who were not appointed by the borough council. Having regard to the changed circumstances of to-day, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of agreeing that if any such committee has been set up outside a local authority, there will be another opportunity for the local authority to set up a committee.

Sir Stanley Reed: Will the Minister be so good as to pay earnest attention to what fell from the lips of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson)? I think we all feel that when millions of men and women are doing this kind of work for nothing, it would be a scandal to pay to have it done.

3.58 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), as to whether this Bill is justified, I think its utility will really very much depend upon the exact nature of the questions asked and the wording of those questions. As to that, we are given exceedingly vague information. It may be my fault, but I do not really understand whether the facts asked for in the Schedule mean only what they say, whether they are questions to be directly answered in one or two words, or whether they are to be regarded as headings. Unless they are merely headings, I am completely puzzled as to what their value will be. To take the right hon. Gentleman's own instance, if this is


to be a way of coupling up John Smith in the Chilterns with his father William Smith in Bristol, that will not happen unless the relationship between the two and the fact that Johnnie Smith's normal address is the same as that of William Smith is recorded, yet there is nothing here to indicate that William Smith and Johnnie Smith belong to the same family. In regard to the heading of "Occupation, profession, trade or employment," will there be any indication whether that refers only to the normal employment, or whether the person is employed or unemployed? If it does not record the fact of unemployment, I can imagine that there will be considerable difficulty, because the figures received will supplement the figures known to the employment exchange and will by no means indicate the number of people available for employment who are not employed.
The point was made by one speaker as to what was to happen to coloured people. There is nothing here about birth places, so that there is no information as to the number of aliens. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should tell us whether we shall have an opportunity of seeing and criticising the questionnaire before the Bill is passed. In the absence of that information the general observations that Members are making are probably not very valuable. We should have the exact questionnaire before us and so be able to point out the lacunae or the things that are obscurely worded. People sitting in Whitehall are rather apt to use expressions that are not clearly understood by the general public. Let me give one example of what can happen owing to the absence of a question. At the time of the last census but one there was a question as to the number of dependent children in each family, and as to the absent members of a family at boarding schools and so forth. The information thus obtained was enormously valuable to eugenists and others who were interested in the trends of the population, but for some reason at the next census that particular question was omitted or was put in a different form, with the result that those of us who are interested in statistical particulars of that sort have been inconvenienced ever since. So I ask the Minister whether we are to see the questionnaire and to have an opportunity of criti-

cising it; and if not will he give more information as to what are the questions that are to be asked?

4.2 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I would like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) in the interests of those individuals throughout the country who are doing magnificent voluntary work at the present time. A plea has also been made on behalf of local authorities, who at the moment are greatly overworked. One point emphasised in this Bill, which I much regret has been brought forward by the Government at this time, is that there is an obligation to keep the register up to date. That means that at a time when the energies and activities of the people are rightly-being directed to helping national interests as far as war is concerned, they are to be harassed and harried by officials in order to keep up to date a register whose value in my opinion is somewhat doubtful. I suggest that at a time when there is a considerable amount of anxiety in the country and when people are doing their level best, it is a pity that there should be put upon them an obligation to fill up another form which is not absolutely essential in the national interest at the present time. The subject of identity discs has been raised. I hope that the discs will not be of the same materials as those supplied at the beginning of the last War, which after they had been worn near the body for a short period deteriorated and rotted away and had to be replaced by others. The only point in the Bill that I appreciate and upon which I can congratulate the Government is in Sub-section (4) of Clause 12, which says that at the end of the present period of hostilities, which I hope will be soon, the Act shall come to an end.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I would like to draw attention to Clause 6 (4), which states:
A constable in uniform, or any person authorised for the purpose under the said regulations, may require a person who under the regislations is for the time being responsible for the custody of an identity card, to produce the card to him or, if the person so required is unable to produce it when the requirement is made, to produce it within such time, to such person and at such place as may be prescribed.
I trust that the Minister will be very careful about this kind of thing, because we


do not want to be stopped in the street by any person anywhere and to be forced to produce a card. If that kind of thing begins we shall be afraid of people meeting us and asking us for cards. One thing that we do respect in this country is our freedom from being challenged on every occasion to produce something to prove that we are certain persons. Let the Minister tell the House what is meant by this proposal. Another point is in regard to cards being lost, destroyed or defaced. Apparently payment has to be made in such a case. If a person loses a card and he can satisfy the authorities that it is a genuine loss, I hope no charge will be made for a new card. If a card is wilfully destroyed or defaced it is another matter altogether. Under a new system like this, to which people are not accustomed, there will be many genuine losses of cards, and I hope that people will not be called upon to make payment for renewals.

4.7 p.m.

Sir Joseph Lamb: One of the outstanding features of the crisis through which we are passing is the willingness with which this House and the country generally have accepted all the Measures proposed by the Government. That has been done. I am sure, in the belief that these Measures are necessary. But it is obvious from what has been said here to-day that the House is not convinced of the necessity of this Bill. I hope that the Minister will either be able to convince us now that the Bill is necessary, or that he will take steps to withdraw the Bill so that we can get on with other business. I support entirely what has been said about voluntary workers who are undertaking tasks willingly and working long hours for nothing, as against the persons who are to receive payment. On the other hand, if this work is to be done by other than voluntary workers, those others ought to be busy now and we ought not to impose upon them any further obligation or duty which is not absolutely necessary. If the Minister cannot convince us that this Bill is absolutely necessary would it not be wise for him to withdraw it and to let us get on with other business.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) raised the question of the fishermen, and the Minister, I understand, ruled that long-shore fishermen would be registered

under the Bill and that deep sea fishermen would be under the Board of Trade. Could my right hon. Friend inform me that near-water trawler and drifter fishermen will be under the Board of Trade? The only other remark I wish to make is that I agree with the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb).

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Magnay: Like every one else in the House at these times I wish to expedite all legislation that is thought necessary by the Government, but as I have sat here and listened to this Debate I have been confirmed in my opinion from the start that this Bill is quite unnecessary. To see the hon. Member who is the de facto leader of the Liberal Opposition at the moment get up on behalf of Liberals, who never tire of telling us that they are custodians of the freedom of the individual, and to hear him give this Bill his blessing, is one of the mysteries of life to me. Another hon. Member has suggested identity discs. The next suggestion will be finger prints. Logically, why not? You might as well tattoo people. What on earth are we coming to when we pass this quite unnecessary legislation in a hurry?
We are fighting now, we are told—and I believe it in my bones—for the rights and the freedom of the individual and for the sacredness of the person of the individual. It is an affront to do anything to the person of an individual without his free consent. Now our people are to be punished if they cannot find their identity card. It takes me all my time to find the letters I received yesterday. I have every right to put them in what pocket I like. I have a right to do what I like with my own stuff, and certainly with my own life. I understood that the idea behind this Bill originally was to get in conscription by easy stages, so that there is no necessity for it now. I make my solemn and emphatic protest against this nonsense and doing this thing, which is quite unnecessary, in time of crisis.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: We welcome the hon. Member's sporadic intervention on behalf of the rights of the subject. For the last two days my hon. Friends and I have


been endeavouring to put forward Amendments to various Bills in order to safeguard the rights of the people of this country, but the hon. Member has not been here on any occasion to give us his support. I rise to draw the attention of the Minister to one small practical point. Even in the legislation which we are passing now there ought to be some relation between the offences which are created by a Measure and the penalties which are prescribed. We ought not, if we can help it, to insert penalties which are out of all proportion to the offences which are contemplated. I would draw attention to Clause 8 and to the penalties there prescribed. All the offences under the Bill are dealt with en bloc, and it is provided that a person guilty of an offence will be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £50, or on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine not exceeding £100. That may be a proper provision where we are dealing with somebody who with intent to deceive has forged an identity card, for that may be a serious matter. There are, however, many lesser offences under this Bill, because in the preceding Sub-section the words occur:
If any person fails to comply with any requirement duly made under this Act or contravenes or fails to comply with any regulations made under this Act, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
Then he is liable to the penalties which I have mentioned. I do not say that the courts would in those cases impose the maximum penalty, but there ought to be some restriction, and we ought to give some guidance to the courts as to the seriousness which we attach to these offences. The requirements here vary a good deal. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) referred to the constable or authorised person who might require a person to produce his identity card. Presumably that is one of the requirements which may be infringed, but if somebody failed when required by a police constable to produce his identity card it is fantastic that he should be liable to penalties of this magnitude. In Clause 3 there are all sorts of things, some important, some not so important, which the Minister may do by regulation.

To say that a man is liable to imprisonment up to two years for some of these small matters seems to ignore any kind of proportion in setting out the penalties. I hope that before we reach the Committee stage the Minister will consider whether, without interfering with the structure of the Bill, it is possible to put in a simple Amendment providing for a lesser penalty where there is a simple failure to comply with one of the requirements.

4.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): The first point I must make is that the Government which must take the responsibility for the introduction of this Bill, have very carefully borne in mind the objections that might be raised to it; but we are in a time of great emergency when the whole power of the nation must be organised to meet the immense task which is in front of us. If our military effort is to be complete we are satisfied that we must have as early as possible a complete and accurate picture and not depend on voluntary registration or on the out-of-date Census of 1931. I hope in these few words to convince the House that the Government did not bring forward this Measure without having fully realised that the natural reaction of people in this country against the filling up of forms and the answering of questions is a deep and sincere one. But, having in mind the knowledge that we are facing a trial which will require all our forces and all our strength of man and woman power in the work of Defence, we are satisfied that we must have this Bill.
Hon. Members have raised a number of points to which we shall give our consideration as quickly as possible. We wish to get the Committee stage of the Bill early, so as to enable us to get on with the register. We do not wish to lose time, but my right hon. Friend and I are prepared to pay close attention to all the points that have been raised and to see whether there are any of them which we can justifiably meet. I will mention one or two of them. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) asked whether it would be necessary for doctors to register as there is already the full British Medical Association register. It will be necessary to have this additional information. As regards fishermen, the point has not been


finally decided, and we are looking at it in the light of what has been said. The present view is that inshore fishermen should be included in the national register. The important thing is that the information should be available whether they are included there or in the Board of Trade register. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) asked about the trawlers. I am speaking without having verified it, but I should think that they would come on the Board of Trade register.

Mr. C. Williams: When I spoke of inshore fishermen I meant the large section of people who have experience at sea such as yacht hands and people of that kind. It is essential that the Board of Trade should have speedy knowledge where to put their hands on these people for war purposes.

Mr. Colville: I should have mentioned that yacht hands are included with inshore fishermen and men of that type, and I agree that it is important we should have accurate information about them. Some hon. Members have suggested that it is unfortunate, at a time when so much voluntary effort is being gladly and freely given, that we should cause payment to be made for this work. I can see that that argument can be used, but this is a piece of official work which we are determined must be carried out thoroughly and accurately, just as the Census is, and I do not see that we can depart from the ordinary practice used in taking the Census and sending round enumerators who receive payment. We must pick our enumerators carefully. They have already been selected, I understand. We must get people who can help householders to fill up the forms, for it is not just a matter of leaving a form and going back for it later. Assistance must be given in filling it up accurately.
That brings me to the question of the time required for the compilation of the register, about which I was asked by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). My right hon. Friend has explained that it would work out in this way: After the decision has been taken to compile the register eight days will be required for instructing the enumerators and four or five days for the distribution of the forms to the houses. Zero hour will be the day when the public will be

required to fill in the form—that is 12 days from the beginning. Another seven days will then be needed for the enumerators to collect the forms and make the necessary transcript for the central register.

Sir E. Grigg: The right hon. Gentleman has not quite answered the point. I understood about the period which will be needed to issue the cards and get them collected and tabulated and return them to the Registrar General or the local authorities who represent him. What I wanted to know was, When will the register be completed and ready for use?

Mr. Colville: At any time after that date. As far as I can see, it will be under 21 days—18, 19 or 20 days from the word "go." There are the 12 days and the seven days, and I am allowing an extra day or a couple of days for grace. For such a very big task I do not think that is a long period. Several hon. Members have asked whether we could lay the draft regulations before the House. I fear that my right hon. Friend and I would find it difficult to do that, because of the delay which would be involved. What I will say is that we will bear in mind very carefully all the points raised—including those put forward by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) who put some points which were of interest and importance—in framing the regulations, which will be based broadly on the lines of the Schedule on the back of the Bill. We have tried to take into account all the information which is wanted. The hon. Member said that she was anxious that we should be able to identify any child who will be living with other people in a distant part of the country as having come from a certain district. We shall have that point in mind.
As to the voluntary work which is being done at the moment by individuals, that would be noted on the register, but I do not think it would be possible to make the register itself a medium for applying, so to speak, for further voluntary workers. That will have to be done through the existing channels. I do not think we could make enumerators persons to whom individuals should apply for getting voluntary jobs; but where any person is at present engaged upon a voluntary job that fact will, of course, be noted. A


number of other points were raised which I have not answered because I want an opportunity to look into them to see whether we can meet them. They are points of detail rather than of large principle. On the main principle of the Bill I repeat that we should not have brought this Measure forward had we not thought that it was absolutely necessary to have, and to have as early as possible, a full picture of the present position of the population.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: A very important point was raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) to which a reply has not been given. The liberties of the subject are very much imperilled when we are at war, and we are willing to give up many of those liberties, but the hon. Member emphasised the fact that whilst we are willing to give up liberties we must know who will have to deal with these questions of liberty. Under Sub-section (4) of Clause 6 it is provided that not merely will a constable in uniform be entitled to demand to see the registration card but any person authorised for the purpose under the regulations will be entitled to do so. Some of us feel very much perturbed about that. We are quite willing to allow a constable to challenge us and to demand the registration card, but not any other person not in uniform, who might make a false claim to see it. Some of us would like an assurance on that point.

Mr. Colville: I hope the hon. Member will acquit me of any discourtesy in not answering before. A moment or so ago I was shown by a Member of the Front Bench opposite an Amendment which, I understand, hon. Members have it in mind to put down on the Committee stage to deal with the point raised in Sub-clause (4), where it refers to:
a constable in uniform or any person authorised for the purpose under the said regulations.
Between now and the Committee stage my right hon. Friend and I will give close consideration to that point. We are anxious to see that these Regulations work effectively, but at the same time we are anxious to see that they work fairly from the point of view of the British public.

Mr. Lees-Smith: When is it proposed to take the Committee stage?

Mr. Colville: To-morrow.

Sir F. Fremantle: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that this register will not interfere with the ordinary Census of 1941?

Mr. Colville: The year 1941 seems a long time ahead these days, but the 1941 Census, if it is possible to take it, will be taken on the same lines as previously.

Mr. Foot: On the point of a person being required to show his registration card to an "authorised person," I do not know whether the proposed Amendment which has been referred to meets the point, but would not some part of the difficulty be covered by providing that persons who are so authorised should be under an obligation similar to that which police constables are under to produce their warrant card or some similar authorisation?

Mr. Colville: I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion, which we will bear in mind in considering the Amendment which we shall discuss to-morrow when the Committee stage is taken.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Beechman: I was a little disturbed, as I think other hon. Members were, by the reluctance, indeed the refusal, of the Minister to promise to let us have the draft regulations before we decide this matter. Like other hon. Members, I do not want to be troublesome, but I cannot see how we can bring our minds to bear upon this vital matter unless we know what the regulations are to be. Otherwise we shall be deciding the matter entirely in the dark. The House has been very generous, as it should be in regard to this legislation, and I am sure that when the regulations are before the House hon. Members will be most careful not to take up time by debating them letter by letter. I would urge the Minister to let us see the regulations before we finally dispose of the matter, perhaps on the Committee stage.

4.28 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson: I very much hope that the penalties provided by this Bill will be revised. At present they are very heavy indeed. They might be the penalties imposed by a Milk Marketing Board. I speak as a magistrate. When magistrates see that a very heavy penalty has been prescribed as a maximum they tend,


naturally, to be somewhat more severe than when a lower penalty has been prescribed. With the greatest respect I must say that these penalties seem to be unnecessarily high.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: There is a great deal of apprehension in the House owing to the fact that the main features of this Bill are not really in front of us, and that we propose to take the Committee stage to-morrow by which time the Bill will pass out of our hands. I have not yet heard from the Minister what the urgency is for getting this Bill through —to a matter of days. He has rather indicated that he does not propose to take action immediately after the Bill is passed, and I would, therefore, ask him whether it is possible to delay the Committee stage until he can show us the regulations so that we can discuss the matter when we are really more informed about it.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I shall be glad to consider what has been said on that point. If it is possible to meet the right hon. Gentleman and others who have spoken, my right hon. Friend and I will be glad to do so. In reply to questions which have been put, I would say that the Schedule on the back of the Bill gives the particulars which we think important in order that a complete picture of the population may be obtained. I recognise that there is some anxiety about the nature of the regulations, but, if the House will allow me and my right hon. Friend to do so, we shall do what we can to meet hon. Members. If hon. Members will refer to the Schedule on the back of the Bill I think they will agree that what we wish to obtain is not unreasonable.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Grimston.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL REGISTRATION [MONEY].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS -HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the establishment of a national register and for the issue of identity cards it is expedient to authorise—
(a) The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act, and
(b) The payment into the Exchequer of all fees received under regulations made under the said Act with respect to identity cards."(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Colville.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — TRADING WITH THE ENEMY BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

4.34 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I think the House will be so cognisant of the necessity of this Bill that it will be unnecessary for me, in introducing the Second Reading, to make anything but a short speech. The Bill gives rise to a number of questions of legal and financial difficulty, but they are questions of detail which will be more properly discussed upon the Committee stage. Therefore, it will be for the convenience of the House if I describe briefly the purport of the various Clauses. Many hon. Members are no doubt aware that it is an offence under common law to trade with the enemy. Only this morning I published a notice in the Press drawing the attention of traders to that fact and giving them warning of the kind of transaction which might be regarded by the courts as coming within that description. Anyone who had experience in the last War is aware, however, that merely to rely on the powers of the common law in regard to trading with the enemy is not sufficient. It was necessary then and is necessary now to lay down in specific Statutes the offences and the machinery for enforcing the law.
Part 1 of the Bill deals with this question of trading with the enemy and Clause 1 sets out the various transactions which fall within that description. There is nothing in that Clause to which I need call attention. Clause 2 is of some importance because there is found the definition


of the enemy. Broadly speaking, it follows the same definition as that in the Bill which I introduced the other day in relation to import and export restrictions. There are one or two points to which I should like to call attention. A person is not to be regarded as an enemy for the purpose of this part of the Bill merely because he is an enemy subject. That is to say, a German or Austrian or Czech refugee does not ipso facto, although he is still an enemy subject, become an enemy for the purpose of Part 1 and it does not become an offence to trade with him; on the other hand hon. Members will realise that I shall have power to proclaim specific individuals who are enemy subjects as coming within the definition of enemy. There is power for me to specify by order any person who does not fall within the categories in Subsection (1) of the Clause and declare that person to be an enemy and to prevent trading with him. This is a recrudescence of what was known in the last war as the statutory list procedure. There may be in neutral countries people of enemy birth, or neutrals, of such close affiliations with the enemy country that trade with them would be almost certain to inure to the benefit of the enemy. In the last war this was the practice and powers were taken to issue statutory lists of people in various countries with whom trade was forbidden.
Clause 3 merely deals with inspection and supervision of businesses where we have reason to suspect that trading with the enemy is going on. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 refer to particular transactions which might be carried out such as the transfer of negotiable instruments, and of securities to enemy countries. That completes the first part of the Bill dealing with trading with the enemy.
Clause 7 raises an entirely different point. It gives power to appoint custodians of enemy property and to vest in them enemy property in this country. Before I go into the details of the Clause, I would make one general observation. I believe it was a fact at the time of the introduction of similar machinery in the last War that there was criticism on the grounds that this was for the first time the confiscation of property of enemies during time of war. That criticism arises from a certain misconception of the primary function of enemy property

custodians. Everyone will agree that the property of enemies of this country cannot be allowed to accrue for the benefit of the property-owner during the course of the War. The purpose of the Clause is not to confiscate the property but to take it over and to conserve it with a view to some arrangement being made to dispose of it when hostilities have terminated. At the end of the last War much of such property cancelled out on each side. In order to make that point clear we have introduced, at the beginning of the Clause, words which show clearly the purpose for which this machinery is being elected.
We shall appoint custodians separately for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and Clause 7 sets out the powers which will be conferred upon them and the duties they will perform. There is however one important point in Clause 7 to which I think I ought to call attention. Under this Clause the definition of enemy property—property which will vest in these custodians—is that for the time being belonging to or held or managed on behalf of an enemy or an enemy subject, but I would call attention to the fact that I can prescribe by order what steps are to be taken with any class of enemy property and although in terms this would allow me to make an order which vested in the custodians the property of, say, those refugees to whom reference has been made earlier during our proceedings, I think it is only right to tell the House that if I get the power under this Clause my intention is to issue a general order which will not vest the property of such people in the custodians although it will rightly impose upon them the obligation to register with the custodians the extent of their property. That will not prevent me making an individual order where I have reason to believe that someone who is an enemy subject might also rightly be regarded as an enemy in fact.
Clause 8 deals with a different kind of point, largely of machinery. Its purpose is to enable any clearing arrangement which may now be in existence to continue if we find ourselves at war with a country with whom we have a clearing arrangement. It is largely a machinery Clause to enable payment still to be made to the clearing office, The House is aware that we have no clearing arrangement with Germany, and therefore, as


far as Germany is concerned, the Clause will have little effect. The other Clauses in the Bill are merely machinery Clauses, to which I do not think it is necessary at this stage to call attention, and I hope that with that explanation the House will be prepared to give me powers which I think are recognised by everyone to be essential in the conduct of a war.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech with careful attention, and in general with complete approval; but I should like to put before the House one or two points with regard to the Bill. I do not think there will be any difference of opinion in any part of the House as to the need for some Measure of this kind. The experience of the last War showed that the Common Law alone was not sufficient to prevent such trading with the enemy as would be deleterious to the interests of the country; therefore, subject to the proviso in Clause 2, which is very careful to make it clear that the mere fact of a person being an enemy subject does not make him an enemy, I do not think any exception whatever will be taken to this part of the Bill. But when we come to what the right hon. Gentleman called the second part of the Bill, dealing with the property of enemies in enemy countries, he rightly points out two facts. In the first place, in the Bill as drafted, enemy subjects are included where they were excluded from the first part of the Bill and, in the second place, there is the empowering provision which enables the President to make Orders. I was not quite clear, when I first read the Bill, what that involved. The right hon. Gentleman has now explained that it does not mean that he may or may not make an Order which covers all these people. The Order will be of a rather vague character with regard to persons who are enemy subjects, but in the case of any person who is in the first instance to be regarded as an enemy subject a good deal of discretion is left in the power of the President, and it is to that point that I want more particularly to address my remarks.
This present emergency differs from the Great War of 1914–18 in two particulars. In the first place, broadly speaking, during the previous War all the subjects of Germany and Austria, and the

other Powers allied against us, were potential enemies, whereas of course, as we have heard from the reply of the Home Secretary earlier on, it is evident that there are resident in this country many persons who are technically enemy subjects and are more enthusiastically with us in the prosecution of the war than any-one else. We have to take that entirely new fact into consideration. The other new fact is that we are not carrying out legislation of this kind for the first time, because we have the experience of the late War present in our minds. As far as I can see, the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman makes with regard to those who are enemy subjects in our midst who are not in any sense our enemies seem to me adequate. The only point is that, of course, we shall have to watch how he carries out his undertaking, because it is naturally of a vague character, and we can only hope that our confident expectation that he will carry it out in the spirit of a reasonable attitude towards these people will be justified. I have no reason to think and I am not suggesting that it will not be justified, but it is the business of the House to exercise a very considerable watching brief to see that all these people, of whom we are all thinking deeply and anxiously, will be properly safeguarded, while we have not the smallest wish, in consequence of that, to allow any improper persons to slip through the fingers of the President of the Board of Trade. I confess that he has a difficult task in the matter.
In regard to the other more general point, I am glad the right hon. Gentleman made the statement that he did at the beginning, pointing out that we are not confiscating enemy property. The provision made in the last War was this: Although nominally we were doing what the President proposes to do in this Bill, to a very large extent the good intentions in that matter did not work out in practice, for two reasons, first of all because the people who took charge of enemy businesses did not always carry through their trusteeship with any great discretion, and a great many bona fide businesses belonging to enemy subjects long established in this country were ruined by the treatment that they received under the management and control of the persons in charge of them. I hope very much that great care will be taken in the present instance to see that nothing of that sort


happens again. In the second place, enemy subjects in this country, many of whom may have been very friendly, did lose a great deal of their property owing to the currency exchange after the War. I happened to be Financial Secretary at a time when the matter became very prominent, and I am bound to say that I came to the conclusion that the main fault in that matter—at any rate, directly —was not ours, but was the fault of the German Government—though the hands of the German Government were largely forced by the currency depreciation which took place in Germany, and for which the German Government had only a partial responsibility.
I hope, therefore, that the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to-day will be loyally observed. We are not dealing, in all cases at any rate, with the kind of people with whom this country has any quarrel. We are dealing, in some of these cases, with people who are quite good friends of this country, who have been in the past, and will be in the future, quite prepared to deal honestly with us. As has been said several times in this House, we are not really at war with the German people, except in so far as we are forced to be by those who are ruling Germany at present. Therefore, I put in a plea that the right hon. Gentleman shall do all he can to see that the expressions he used with regard to the non-confiscation of this property and with regard to the fair treatment that will be given, both during and after the war, shall be most carefully observed, and shall be carried through in the spirit which, I am quite sure, he intends, at the present time, that it shall.

4.52. p.m.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has said everything that needs to be said about the general principles of this Bill. I rise only to ask one or two questions on matters of interpretation. The President of the Board of Trade referred to Clause 2. Subsection (2) of that Clause says:
The Board of Trade may by order direct that any person specified in the order shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be, while so specified, an enemy.
I take it that "any person" is intended really to mean any enemy subject, and

that it is not intended to take any general power to declare any person whatever to be an enemy. Secondly, I want to ask, what is the definition of "enemy subject"? The phrase is used in this Clause and in Clause 15—the definition Clause—where it is said
 'enemy subject' means—
(a)an individual who, not being either a British subject or a British protected person, possesses the nationality of a State at war with His Majesty, or
(b) a body of persons constituted or incorporated in, or under the laws of, any such State."
What view does the Board of Trade take with regard to natives of Bohemia and Slovakia? I think I am right in saying that we have never recognised the German overlordship of those territories. It would be of interest to know what exactly is the view of the Government. Are natives of those territories regarded as being enemy subjects within the meaning of Clause 2 and Clause 15? It is important to know whether the powers which the President of the Board of Trade is taking to proscribe anyone are going to apply automatically to people from those territories. I do not think the Minister referred to Clause 4, which deals with the "transfer of negotiable instruments and choses in action by enemies." The thing is not entirely clear. Would it not be an advantage if an Amendment were made, providing that this should apply only to the assignment of choses made by or on behalf of an enemy before the outbreak of hostilities? It seems to me that we might have some confusion as the Clause stands, and if the assignment had in fact taken place before the outbreak of hostilities it is difficult to see why we should have to have the sanction of the Treasury before the rightful payment is enforced.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) raised a point of very considerable importance when he said, from his great experience, that he knew of cases in the last War when the good intention that this should not amount to confiscation had been, in practice, spoilt by the way in which enemy property was administered. I agree that we shall not be acting in consonance with the declaration of principle that this is not confiscation unless the properties are managed or disposed of in the spirit of trusteeship. I


have no doubt that the trustees to be appointed, who will be responsible people, will have that in mind in all their dealings with this property.
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) inquired about the phrase "any person" "Any person" means what it says—any person, not necessarily an enemy subject. The whole point is that this statutory list should cover persons who are neutrals but whose contacts with the enemy we know are so close that to allow them to trade would be in fact to allow trading with the enemy. The Czechs are regarded as enemies, because they live in a territory which is under the control of an enemy country. With regard to the point the hon. Member raised on Clause 4, I will certainly look into it before the Committee stage, but he will see that this is not a prohibition. It appears to me that, even if you put in something about the beginning of the war, somebody would still have to look into every transaction which took place before the beginning of the war, in order to make certain that it was not undertaken in anticipation of the war, in order to avoid legislation of this kind. I think that in practice we should come back to the position which exists under the Bill, but I will look into the matter.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: With regard to the position of Czechs, I would point out that those who have come over to this country since the occupation of Czechoslovakia by Germany have German passports, but that there are people who were here before the German occupation, who have Czech passports. What is the position of those?

Mr. Stanley: While they would not necessarily be treated as enemies, I understand that, technically, they would be regarded as enemy subjects. But I will look into this matter, and see that I am in a position to give a definite answer at a later stage.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: Regarding Clause 6, is there not just a possibility of a loophole being given to persons trading with neutrals who may desire to purchase enemy currency or securities in one form or another? Sub-section (2) states:
''the expression 'enemy currency' means any such notes or coins as circulate as cur-

rency in any area under the sovereignty of a Power with whom His Majesty is at war, not being an area in the occupation of His Majesty or of a Power allied with His Majesty
Is there any chance of a loophole being given for trading indirectly with the enemy in an area occupied by a Power allied with His Majesty?

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I can reply only by leave of the House. I will look into the matter, but I should have thought that the object of this is to say to an ally, who might occupy a part of Germany, that francs could circulate in that particular part of Germany which had been occupied, and it is therefore to prevent francs being circulated in an enemy country. I do not believe that such a difficulty would arise.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — TRADING WITH THE ENEMY [MONEY].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,

"That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to impose penalties for trading with the enemy, to make provision as respects the property of the enemy and enemy subjects, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—
(a)the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act by the Board of Trade, and
(b)the payment into the Exchequer of any fees received by any custodian of enemy property appointed under the said Act and of any commission retained by a clearing office by virtue of the said Act."— (King's Recommendation signified).— [Mr. Stanley.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

5.4 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is the first of two Bills of somewhat similar nature dealing with emergency powers with regard to Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance. This Bill deals with Unemployment Insurance. The object is to take powers to simplify the scheme during the war. Many new tasks have already been thrown upon Employment Exchanges throughout the country, and there will be greater tasks still ahead dealing with National Service, refugees and many other subjects. These by themselves will demand some modification of the Insurance Scheme in time of war, and the further reason why a modification is inevitable is that we cannot in war time run a big central register as we have done for a long time at the Ministry's Claims and Record Office.
This Bill gives my right hon. Friend power to modify the scheme by regulations, and these regulations must be laid before Parliament, and either House can annul the regulations with an Address within 20 days. Certain provisions of the principal Act are expressly excluded from the powers we are now asking for my right hon. Friend. It is not proposed to modify by regulation the rates of benefit, the rates of contribution, the equal thirds contribution from the Exchequer, or the provision in the principal Act relating to the Treasury and the Unemployment Fund. The Bill expressly excludes any such modification. The changes we have in mind as being inevitable deal with matters like these—the suspension of certificates excepting or exempting persons from liability to insurance, and the temporary suspension of provisions for return of contributions paid in error. These matters arise owing to difficulties caused by the impossibility of running a central register. Another question is the adjustment of benefit periods in view of the fact that these records will be unavailable.
There is one other major change which will be necessary, namely, the relaxation of benefit conditions in favour of persons taking in refugees and in favour of those claiming dependants benefit. I give the House the assurance of my right hon. Friend that in general it is in no way intended to worsen the position of those

who are entitled to unemployment insurance. These provisions are rendered inevitable by war. Clause I gives the necessary powers and there is in Subsection (2) of Clause 1 provision for financial adjustment between the Unemployment Fund and the two special insurance schemes relating to insurance and banking. Otherwise, save for Clause 3, which deals with Northern Ireland, all the other Clauses are consequential and formal.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: Do we understand that the real change in the extension is to be dealt with by regulations? The provisions of the Bill are clearly set out, but the details of application will be made known to the House in regulations from time to time. We have no objection at all to this, because we are given to understand clearly, that in regard to any objection there may be to regulations there will be ample opportunity to deal with them in any period of emergency that may come upon us. This is a very necessary provision. The labour market must be in a state of flux for a considerable time. Many people will lose their occupations because of changes in the supply and demand under war conditions, and many of them will necessarily have to be embodied in the Insurance Scheme. There is nothing that I can think of to-day to which we can object in this Bill. We understand that everything that is laid down will be administered under the regulations, and Members on this side of the House have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Foot: We, also, have no objection to the Second Reading of the Bill. I was very glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that it was not intended in any way to worsen the position of men in receipt of unemployment benefit. I would ask him whether he will expand that assurance and assure us specifically —not because I doubt anything he has said—that it is not intended to make any change to the detriment of the unemployed man as regards the number of contributions which are needed in order to bring him into benefit, that it is not intended to make any change to his detriment with regard to the period of time for which he is entitled to draw benefit.


and that nothing is to be done to cut down his rights of appeal, in the first place, to the court of referees, and, in the second place, to the umpire. It would be useful if we could have an assurance on these three points.

5.10 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): As to the first point—the question of contributions—the position is rather the other way. It is clear that if you cannot keep a central register, there is no possibility of insisting on 30 contributions in two years. That will be in favour of the man, and not against him. With regard to the second point raised by the hon. Member, the number of extra days a man may have under the present law may be affected. Subject to that reservation, I can give the assurance for which the hon. Member asks.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EMERGENCY POWERS) [Money].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Resolved,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Minister of Labour in case of war to modify or suspend the operation of any of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1939, and make provision with respect to any of the matters to which the said Acts relate, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1939, out of moneys so provided"—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill has two objects. The first object is to provide for an extension of unemployment assistance so that allowances can be paid to those who are at present outside the scope of the Act but who may be in distress through circumstances caused by the war. The second object is to take powers in regard to unemployment assistance similar to those contained in the Unemployment Insurance (Emergency Powers) Bill to which the House has just given a Second Reading. With regard to the first object of this Bill, the sort of people we have in mind are those who are in distress through being officially evacuated, or those who through enemy action or threatened enemy action have found themselves or some person in whom they have relied cut off from their normal source of livelihood. The provisions also apply to those in distress through the temporary holding up of a Government grant or award to which they arc entitled. Without such a Bill the burden of maintaining these people would fall on the local authority, and it is obviously inequitable that that should happen. The emergency circumstances demand rapid action and effective machinery, and we ask the House to approve procedure by regulation.
In regard to the second object, we propose to take power to modify the unemployment assistance scheme whether for those who are now within it or those who may be brought within the provisions of the scheme in future. It is not, however, intended to modify by regulation the provisions relating to the assessment of need or those which safeguard certain household resources. Any change in that regard would have to be the subject of legislation. Nor is it intended to modify in any way the procedure under which regulations for the assessment of needs must be submitted in draft to Parliament and cannot become operative until there is an affirmative resolution of this House.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Grenfell: Here again we have to suspend final judgment on the regulations until they arc before us, but in general we on this side of the House approve the Bill. We know that where there is loss of employment there will, in the absence of rights of insurance, be a certain number of people who will be applicants for relief, and for these provision must be


made. No better way of getting a standard or universal measure of relief could be adopted than is proposed in the Bill. People will be moving from their own areas and going to districts where they have no legal claim for public assistance and no connection with the area in which they find themselves located. The machinery of public assistance which is provided in the unemployment assistance scheme will meet this situation better than any other. In 1914 we had the Prince of Wales's Fund to meet contingencies of this kind. There was great distress in some areas for the first few months, but it was considerably reduced in less than 12 months. At that time there was need for a very special and large measure of relief. The best possible way is to meet the emergency beforehand, and I am glad that the Minister is taking the powers which he proposes in this Bill. I should, however, like to make certain that in widening the unemployment assistance scheme he will not do so in such a way as to preclude from benefit certain small business people, people who have "rounds" and so on, of whom there are a very large number. I hope he will pay close attention to the claims of people in those circumstances.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I should like to join in welcoming the provisions of this Bill. It is very fortunate that we have this machinery to apply and that the application is being done promptly, so that there will be no intervening period of chaos and distress. In this and other Bills we are giving very extensive powers to Ministers, by regulation. On these benches we generally regard such powers with a certain amount of suspicion, but on this occasion I think the whole tendency of the legislation is an expansive one, to bring in people who would otherwise be left out. We entirely welcome the Bill, but I would ask what is to be done with regard to certain regulations. There are regulations under existing Acts which lay down conditions for qualifying for benefit, in which certain conduct is imposed upon the applicant, such, for instance, as going to camp. I should like an assurance that we are not to have any stiffening up of that kind in the machinery of this Act. Subject to that reservation, I am certain that the intention of the Bill is one of which the whole House will generally approve.

Mr, Beechman: In extending a warm welcome to the Bill I would ask the Minister to bear in mind that there will be numbers of fishermen likely to be thrown out of employment by finding it difficult to carry on their avocation of fishing owing to war conditions.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (EMERGENCY POWERS) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Minister of Labour in case of war to extend the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, to additional classes of persons, and to modify or suspend any of the provisions of the said Act and to make provision for the payment of allowances in an emergency, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1034, out of moneys so provided"—(King's recommendation signified.)—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFFS (WAR SERVICE) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time"
The main object of the Bill is to empower local authorities and certain other authorities to make up the balance of the civil pay of their employés undertaking war service, and the provision is extended to include Civil Defence services. The proposals in the Bill have been discussed with representatives of the various associations and the London County Council, and they agreed to the general principle of the proposals. The permissive character of the Bill follows the precedent of the Act passed during the last War. I hope that with this explanation the House will be able to agree to the Second Reading.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: We welcome the Bill, but there are two questions I should like to ask. How is it proposed to make up the difference so far as the local authorities are concerned? It is impossible to estimate what it will be owing to the fact that we have no experience on the point. Will it be by way of a block grant? Does it mean that the whole of the increased expenditure will be taken up in this way, or that some portion of it will have to be borne by the local authorities themselves. There is no obligation on local authorities to apply the Bill, and as to whether there is any likelihood of trouble owing to the differentiation in practice the Minister perhaps may have some opinion. As regards Clause 4 I gather that local authorities are empowered, if necessary, to pay their own contributions and their employés contributions, with regard to superannuation benefits. In that case I suppose it will be necessary to draw up some kind of agreement to be entered into. As far as I can see there is no provision for this.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Foot: There are one or two points I should like to put to the Minister. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) has pointed out that the Bill is purely permissive, in this sense, that it says the local authorities "may" make up the amount of the salary, that is, pay the man his ordinary salary less war-time remuneration. May I remind the Minister that different local authority associations have taken a different view of this matter. Quite recently a circular was sent out by the County Councils Association. I have not the circular with me, but the effect of it was that where a man had volunteered to join the Territorial Army or some similar service before the war started the County Councils Association recommended their members to make up his salary, but if he was conscripted after the war started they recommended them to take a different course. That is rather an undesirable differentiation. I understand that there have been a good many cases in which local government servants and local government officers have been desirous of joining the Territorial Army but have been discouraged in some cases from doing so by the local authority, possibly because they wanted them to take part in A.R.P. work instead. Therefore, it may not be entirely the fault

of a man himself that he did not join the Territorial Army or volunteer in some capacity before the outbreak of the war, and you would have the anomalous situation of some employés of the same authority having their pay made up and some not. That was the attitude taken by the County Councils Association. An entirely different view was taken by the municipal boroughs.
The question I want to ask is this: The Minister is giving power to local authorities to make up the salaries of their employés in every case. Therefore, will he use his influence with the local authorities to see that they use these powers and make up these salaries? Of course the right hon. Gentleman cannot compel them, it is purely a permissive matter, but will he make it clear that it is the view of the Department that these powers should be used by local authorities? In the second place, I should like to ask the Minister a question in regard to Clause 3, Sub-section (2), where you have these words:
If any such person dies during his period of war service or is prevented, in consequence of being permanently incapacitated by injury or disease received or contracted during that period, from resuming service in his civil capacity
I have looked at these words and I find some difficulty in understanding what they are meant to convey. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me. Is it intended to provide for the case where a man has been permanently injured? Is it intended to save his superannuation rights? That may be the meaning. The hon. Member for North Camberwell referred in particular to the power which is given in Clause 4 to local authorities in certain cases to pay into the superannuation fund, not only their own contributions, but also the man's contributions. Under Sub-section (3), the power is purely permissive, for it is stated that the local authority:
may pay in respect of him to that fund the aggregate amount which he would have been liable to contribute
I am a little puzzled by what follows a little further on in the Clause, because in Sub-section (4) a similar provision is made with regard to probation officers, but in their case it is stated that:
The probation authority shall pay to the superannuation fund established by any


rules or scheme relating to the superannuation of such an officer amounts equal to the aggregate of any sums which he would have contributed to the fund
In the case of the local government authority in the ordinary way the employing authority may or may not, at its own discretion, pay the man's contribution into the fund, but in the case of the probation officer, it must do so. I should be glad if we could have some explanation of that differentiation. I am sorry to raise somewhat small and technical points on the Second Reading—I am sure the Minister will appreciate the way in which we are taking these Bills—but I thought that it would be better to raise these points at this stage.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Goldie: I trust that neither the House nor the Minister will think that I am raising a quibbling point. The point I want to raise may be a Committee point, but I feel that there may be a slight slip in the drafting. The Preamble to the Bill says that it is a Bill to make provision with respect to clerks and deputy clerks of the peace, and in the Schedule, paragraph 2, there is a reference to the clerk of the peace of a borough and in paragraph 5, which deals with various appointments, there is a reference to:
the standing joint committee in the case of a clerk, or an employé of a clerk, to county justices, and the borough council in the case of a clerk.
The point on which I should like to have an assurance is that the word ''borough'' includes "city." In a certain capacity I have been brought into close touch with clerks of the peace and also with magistrates' clerks who are appointed not by the borough council, but by the city council. Unless there is something in the Local Government Act to the effect that the word "borough" includes "city," I suggest that it might be as well in Committee to amend the wording of the Schedule in those two cases and to make it read "city or borough council." This matter applies to 10 or 15 towns which have the dignity of being called cities.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: Like other hon. Members who have spoken on this Bill and preceding Bills, I desire cordially to congratulate the Minister of Health and other Ministers on the very valuable social

legislation which they are producing immediately on the outbreak of war. Those who had experience of the last War will know that some of the legislation which we are now having was not introduced until the War had reached an advanced stage, and that certainly some of those who suffered socially and financially as a result of the War had their grievances attended to only very lightly, if at all. That charge cannot be made to-day, and perhaps this indicates a very commendable and desirable advance in the social consciousness prevailing in the Government.
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) observed that this Bill is optional as far as the authorities are concerned. That applies only to Clause 1, for Clause 2 places a clear and definite obligation upon certain authorities to pay half the salaries of certain officials. That is a very important power, and I think some further explanation should be given to us concerning the authorities that are mentioned in the Schedule. It seems to me that many authorities which ought to have the benefit of the Bill are excluded. Hon. Members will note that clerks of the peace, or deputy clerks of the peace, coroners, probation authorities, insurance committees, joint electricity authorities and the managers of local education authorities are included. Apparently these are the whole of the authorities that are to be concerned under this Bill.
Why is the Bill so restricted? I have in mind statutory non-profit-making authorities, such as the Tyne Improvement Commission, which are performing great service as conservators of rivers. Virtually they are the local authorities of the rivers and the waterways, and they employ many hundreds of people. They are the owners of docks, railways, ferries, foreshores, and so forth. They are important organisations whose importance does not grow less because we are in a state of war. As the Schedule refers to small concerns such as insurance committees, which long ago ought to have been placed under the local authorities, to the general advantage and economy of the country, I am surprised that such great authorities as those which I have indicated appear to be rigorously excluded from the operation of the Measure. This is an important point to me and to a large number of others who are concerned with these excluded authorities.
Should they possess these powers to expend this money without statutory authority, or an option such as is given under Clause 1, I should be satisfied; but if they are excluded, then I am sure that many hundreds of authorities and employés throughout the country will want to know why they should not have these benefits. Perhaps the Minister will see that when we reach another stage of the Bill these authorities are specifically included.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: I wish to raise two points. The first, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), is that under the Bill it is permissive on local authorities to make up the pay of officials. This, it seems to me, may lead to differentiation between different classes of local government officers in the service of the same authority and also differentiation between similar classes of officers in different local government areas. I am not pressing that the Bill should be made compulsory. No doubt there are good reasons, historical and otherwise, for maintaining the voluntary character of these arrangements, but I suggest that the Government should give a lead in regard to what they want local authorities to do. In most cases of this kind the Government do give a lead. In connection with the Military Training Act and the Reserve Forces Act, they indicated more or less what they intended to do in connection with civil servants. If they gave a lead in this connection also, it would go far to avoid undesirable differences of opinion on local councils. Perhaps if my right hon. Friend the Minister would say something about the line which he would like authorities in the country to follow, it would be of advantage.
The second point arises out of Clause 1 (2). Is it the intention to stabilise the position, or to allow for promotion? If a local government officer would, in the normal course have received increments is it intended to allow for such increases? The words of the Sub-section are:
A sum which shall not exceed the remuneration which he would have received, if he had continued to serve in his civil capacity.''
Does that make allowance for promotion? Then, in the other way, suppose that a

local government officer has joined the Army as a private and as such has received a certain amount of supplementary pay from the authority which previously employed him. Suppose he becomes an officer in the Army, and as such receives as much as or more than he would have received if he had remained in civilian employment In that case, does the local authority continue to make up the difference between his former remuneration and his pay as a private or do they, from time to time, review the pay which he is receiving in the Service and alter their payments to him according to the rank which he holds? If, as I imagine, the intention is that there should be periodical reviews, then surely it should be stated in the Bill that there is an obligation on the man concerned to report any promotion which he receives in the Army or other Service, so that the local authority should not have to pay extra money and perhaps have to claim it back afterwards. These are important points which ought to be cleared up in the interests of the local authorities.

5.44 p.m.

Sir A. Wilson: May I suggest adding to the Schedule as Item 18, the following words:
officer or servant of a charitable institution to which it is certified by the Charity Commissioners that it is expedient that Section one of this Act should apply, notwithstanding any trust affecting the charity.
A good many charitable institutions employ persons who may be called up, and it would assist in the operation of the Measure and prevent much subsequent correspondence if it were extended to charities as well as educational institutions.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I understand the importance of getting this Bill and the other Bills through the House, but there is room for much discussion on the questions which arise out of these proposals. It is obvious that there will be no possibility of adequate discussion of the Bill in the Committee stage and I suggest that the Minister should insert a time limit and should say, for instance, that the Bill will run only for three months. At the end of three months we may be in a better position to discuss the Bill properly and go


into all the many questions of importance which arise out of it.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister make it clear that the Bill covers mental hospital committees? These committees are in a special category. They have a certain relationship to the county councils but they are statutory committees and if the Bill does cover them, then they ought to be included in the list of authorities in the Schedule. Further, I would ask the Minister to give us a little more information on the financial side of the Bill. I feel sure that, in some cases, it will substantially increase the expenditure of local authorities. I appreciate the reason for ambiguity—the reference in the Preamble makes that clear—but in view of the fact that many authorities will have very heavy commitments, we should be careful not to overload them and the already overburdened ratepayers in many parts of the country. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say that beyond a very small increase to local ratepayers no great burden will be involved and that beyond a certain period the expenditure will be borne by the National Exchequer.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: Although it is true that the Committee stage of the Bill will necessarily occupy only a short time it is valuable to have the suggestions of the House before us when, as in this case, we are not taking all the stages at one sitting. I have on a previous occasion, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) knows, accepted Amendments which were shown to be of advantage in the Statutes which we were trying to frame. I shall examine the suggestions made on this Bill from that point of view. It is difficult, however, to accept the rather optimistic opinion of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that we should be in a better position at the end of three months to go into the details of all these Bills.

Mr. Gallacher: Not all of them, but Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Mr. Elliot: My remark applies even to those. One thing inseparable from war is confusion, and if all these matters were left to be brought up again at the end of a short period and if people did not know exactly where they stood, we should

only introduce more distress into the minds of those in whose interests we are putting forward this legislation. If it is found necessary to amend a Statute fresh legislation can be brought in. Throughout the last War legislation improving conditions was frequently introduced from time to time, such as the legislation which we are bringing forward en bloc at the present time. I do not think I can go further than a promise to consider the points which have been raised, but I will do my best to answer one or two questions. The reply to the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie), who asked whether "borough" in this case included "city," is "yes." Then, I was asked by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) whether the list of local authorities was sufficiently extensive. I think it is. I shall investigate the case of the authority to which he has made reference, to see whether or not it does come within the ambit of the Bill. My impression is that if it is a local government unit, it comes within the ambit of the Bill, and if it is outside the scope of the Bill, it would need to be treated separately, if indeed it is not statutorily barred against making up salaries as is proposed here. I think that also is the answer to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), who brought up the case of mental hospital committees. In so far as they are local government units, I think they are covered by this Bill, but I think the special position which they occupy does not necessitate their being enumerated in the Schedule of the local authorities. I will, however, look at the matter further.

Mr. Silkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question of the Metropolitan Water Board, which is a statutory authority but is not a local authority??

Mr. Elliot: Yes, I will undertake to look into the question of the Metropolitan Water Board, but, as the hon. Member will see, we are limited by the Title of the Bill, and I cannot promise to put anything in which would go outside the Title of the Bill.

Mr. Sorensen: If, as a result of inquiries, the right hon. Gentleman finds it necessary to include specifically mental hospitals, will he include them before the Third Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Elliot: I should not like to give a pledge, and I am sure the House would not expect me to answer a hypothetical question of that sort, but I will undertake in good faith to look into it. One or two questions of finance were raised. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) asked whether some portion of the expenditure would fall on the shoulders of the local authority. I think the answer is "Yes." Obviously, if the local authority makes up the pay of certain individuals, the sum to make it up comes from the revenue of the local authority. The local authorities are recouped in many ways by the State, but if they undertake certain expenditure, a proportion of it is bound to fall on their shoulders, and it is for that reason that the point which he and other hon. Members made—the hon. Member for West Leyton also made the point: "Do not overload the local authorities"—it is for that very reason that the Bill is permissive and not compulsory. That deals also with the point made by several other hon. Members as to increments, whether the payment is a stabilised sum or whether it will allow for increments. As I say, the Bill is permissive and says that a certain sum of money shall not be exceeded. It is open to a local authority to review the position from time to time, according to the increase or the decrease of salary which its employés receive. I am sure that the employés would play fair by the local authorities and would inform them if in fact their salaries were higher and the sum to be made up was a lesser sum than had been originally arranged between the two.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) whether I would enjoin upon the local authorities to take certain steps. We have got this Bill on the strict understanding with the local authorities that it should be permissive and not compulsory, and I hope they will interpret it in a fair and reasonable spirit. I can say that we shall interpret it in a fair and reasonable spirit, and I think that precept will be better than injunction in this case. We cannot make provision in the Statute for all the cases that may arise. This is very much a sort of gentlemen's Bill and a gentlemen's agreement, and I hope very much that it will be treated in that fair and reasonable spirit. We do not intend to tie ourselves too closely to the letter of the

Statute here. There was a reference by the hon. Member for Dundee to some rather obscure words at the top of page 4. They merely re-echo the provisions set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Subsection (2). He also asked about the difference between the treatment of probation officers and certain other staffs. The fact is that the same treatment applies to probation officers as to others, but the option is as to the method of payment by the employing authority. These matters are somewhat technical and intricate, and perhaps the hon. Member will allow me, if I undertake to do so, to discuss the matter with him. We shall look further into the various points of criticism to see whether or not it is desirable to embody any of them in the Statute.

Mr. Gallacher: How does a gentlemen's agreement apply to a council where there is a Tory majority?

Mr. Elliot: I think that original sin is not entirely a monopoly of any one section or of even one political section of the community, and I have heard of employés who considered that they were receiving harsh treatment even from local authorities who were not entirely of the political complexion of the party to which I belong. But I do not wish to be provocative.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFFS (WAR SERVICE) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,

"That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the war service of clerks and deputy clerks of the peace, coroners and persons employed by local and public authorities and certain undertakers, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase resulting from the operation of the said Act in expenditure which is authorised by any enactment to be paid out of moneys so provided."—(King's recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Elliot.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION (WAR SERVICE) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is not unrelated to the previous Bills. Pensions to teachers are paid out of the Board's Vote. There is no superannuation fund. Teachers pay 5 per cent. of their salary, and the local authority pay 5 per cent. This is a Bill to enable teachers to count war service as if it were teaching service; in other words, to retain their pension privileges when undertaking war service. Where an employer makes up war pay equal to the teachers' salary, or where war service pay is equal to or exceeds the civil pay, the usual contributions will be paid. We expect that this will be the usual thing. The extra cost to the Exchequer will depend on the number of teachers undertaking war service who are not included in this category; in other words, those who are exempted from the payment of contributions. The various Clauses deal with special cases. Clause 2 deals with those in process of being trained at colleges. Clause 3 deals with teachers whose contributory service is interrupted by, for instance, service abroad. Clause 6 determines the reckoning of salary. Clause 8 applies to organisers, and Clause 9 to teachers in certain non-grant aided schools.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: The purpose of the Bill is a very simple one. It provides that teachers who serve in the Forces shall not be penalised in their provision for old age. A similar Bill was passed during the War of 1914. It is an essential Bill and we accept it; indeed, we welcome it. Although the idea of the Bill is a simple one, it is in its working out fairly complicated and comprises a considerable number of Clauses. I should like to say, in connection with this Bill and the others with which we are being called upon to deal, that although we are here as an Opposition, we are dispensing with the work of the Committee stages. Therefore, while we are passing these Bills in this fashion, it will be understood that,

if experience shows that there are certain omissions which ought to have been rectified by Committee discussion, we shall be at liberty to bring the matter up at a later stage. I say that in connection with this and all the other Bills we are passing, and we shall not regard it as legitimate for it to be said to us that we agreed to them when they were in the House.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Evans: I should like to associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is difficult to understand the full implications of a Bill like this on a few hours notice, but I have no objection to it; on the contrary, I welcome it. It is a fair recognition of the position of the teachers, and at this moment, when we are appreciating what the teachers are doing, we gladly agree to the Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.—[Captain McEwen.]

Orders of the Day — TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION (WAR SERVICE) [Money].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Resolved,

"That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Board of Education for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable war service to be treated as contributory service, approved external service or qualifying service for the purpose of the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1918 to 1937."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Lindsay.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (WAR SERVICE SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is really the counterpart of the Bill with which we have just dealt and relates to teachers in Scotland. Its main purpose is to enable war service given by teachers in Scotland to be treated as service for the purposes of the superannuation scheme. It makes a departure from previous enactments in that it removes in certain cases the statutory obligation resting on teachers and employers to pay contributions in respect of service reckoned for purposes of pensions; but that is limited to periods of war service and to teachers who are in receipt of any balance of civil pay and are receiving less by way of war service pay than they would have been receiving as salary in civil life. The Bill provides that a person who interrupts or postpones his period of training in the teaching profession in order to render war service shall be deemed to be a teacher during the period of such service. That will result in war service being credited to him for superannuation purposes when he has eventually completed his period of training. This Bill does not require a Financial Resolution because it does not impose a charge on the Exchequer. The expenditure arising under it will be a charge on the Education (Scotland) Fund, which under existing legislation receives from the Exchequer eleven-eightieths of the expenditure on superannuation of teachers in England and Wales. This Bill does not, therefore, impose a fresh charge.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Again we accept and welcome this Bill.

Question, ''That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Captain McEwen.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL MARINES BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

6.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill has already passed all its stages in another place, and I think it is quite non-controversial. It confers upon the Admiralty the power by Proclamation to extend the service of Royal Marines by five years. This power is already possessed in respect of seamen. Otherwise, at the end of his engagement, a man now serving in the Royal Marines would be entitled to discharge. In Sub-section (2) we are asking the House to put into abeyance the power we already possess to extend by two years the service of a man serving in the Royal Marines if he is serving abroad. Clearly if we are given power to extend the service of a man in the Royal Marines by five years we do not want the limited power, under an old statute, to extend his service by two years in the case of his serving abroad. The House gave us this power in the last war and I hope they will give us the same power again.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: We on this side, of course, support this Bill, which confers powers similar to those which were granted in the last war. The net effect of this is that the service of a man will be extended for five years whether he is on a home or a foreign station. It applies to men now serving, and I should like to know whether it means that men who are being enlisted to-day will also carry this obligation.

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, but I do not think the point will arise, for they will probably be joining for 12 years.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Captain McEwen.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Shakespeare: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is also a Bill which has passed through all its stages in another place. It confers upon the naval rating and the Royal Marine the power to make a verbal or an informal will, and establishes the right of the Admiralty to accept such will as a valid one. For some strange reason this right, which has been possessed by a merchant seaman and by a soldier ever since 1837, was removed from the sailor in 1865. In the last War it was found that a man engaged upon active service might want to make a will at a moment's notice, and it is provided that a will, though made under informal circumstances, shall be a valid document in law and that the Admiralty shall treat it as such. A short Measure on those lines was passed then.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: In supporting the Bill I should like to ask what is meant by a "verbal will." Does the hon. Gentleman mean something said to somebody without there being any witnesses? How can anyone prove anything like that? I can understand that a man could write a will to which there was no witness, or dictate one, but a verbal will means surely that there has been no record of any sort. Since the Bill passed in the last War there have been alterations in the Common Law with regard to wills. For instance, a man cannot will the whole of his estate away from his wife. Am I right in saying that this Bill is concerned only with that part of the man's estate which comes to him from the service in which he is serving and has no relation to any other estate he may hold?

Mr. Shakespeare: Of course, this only relates to "naval assets" as defined in Clause 2. On the first point, the reference to a verbal will means that a will made by a sailor is valid if it is taken down by two witnesses who hear it and put into writing. Equally, if he writes a letter to his sweetheart or wife leaving her his money, even though there are no witnesses, that letter is taken to be a valid will.

Mr. Ammon: If the man makes a statement and someone else writes it down, that is what is meant by the word "verbal."

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Captain McEwen.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — MILITARY AND AIR FORCES (PROLONGATION OF SERVICE) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

6.19 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is another Bill which has come down from another place, where if has passed through all its stages. I think I can explain the object of it in a very few words. Under the Royal Proclamation of 1st September reservists, both of the Army and Air Force, were called up on permanent service, and soldiers and airmen who would otherwise be liable to be transferred to the Reserve have been ordered to continue in either the Army or the Air Force service. We have power under Section 87 of the Army and Air Force Act to hold these men for one year beyond the time at which they would otherwise be entitled to discharge, but only for one year. Under the Conditions of Service Act, a man can be enlisted voluntarily for the duration of the emergency and, under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, men who are compulsorily called up for service serve for the duration of the emergency. The object of the Bill which I am now moving is to authorise the retention until the end of the emergency of all men who might under the terms of their enlistment be eligible for discharge before that date, whenever it is.
There are only two points to which I would call the attention of hon. Members and the first of them is in Sub-section (1) of Clause 1. Reference is here made to the Army and Air Force Reserves, and the object is to cover reservists who may not as yet have been called up and who have not therefore become members of the Regular Forces. The Bill does not apply to the Royal Marines. I would


also call the attention of the House to Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, which relates to men temporarily released from service under the Conditions of Service Act. The House will remember that this Act enables men to be temporarily released from service if their services are required somewhere else. The object of the Subsection is to make it clear that temporary release from the military or air forces does not exempt men from their conditions of service. Those are the contents of the Bill, stated briefly. I shall be glad to answer any question that hon. Members wish to put.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: Members on this side of the House are in agreement with the Bill. I have two questions to ask the Minister and the first of them is, what does
 "end of the emergency" 
mean? Does it mean the actual end of hostilities or the official ending of the war, which may be considerably different? The other point is, why is it definitely laid down that the Marines serve for another five years while there is a more less undefined term for the Army and Air Force?

Mr. Bellenger: I would like to add a question to those of my hon. Friend by asking whether the Bill will affect the pension rights of the serving soldier in any way by reason of the prolongation of his service? Will he get any increased pension at the end of his service as a result of the Bill keeping him in the Forces for longer than his original contractual obligation?

Mr. Lees-Smith: I notice that the Bill does not concern the Navy. What are the conditions of service of men who volunteer for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve? Is there any reason why they should be left out?

6.23 p.m.

Sir V. Warrender: I could not answer the last question because it does not concern my Department. We are concerned only with increasing the powers which we already have for carrying on the war, under the Army and Air Forces Act. As to the question about the official date of the expiring of the emergency, I wish I could say what it would be.

Mr. Ammon: I did not ask that.

Sir V. Warrender: I wish I could tell the hon. Gentleman. The time referred to in the Bill is the day upon which the emergency is officially declared to be terminated. In regard to the Marines, these are not in the Bill because they are not covered by the Army and Air Forces Act. As to pensions, I would not like to give a definite undertaking at this stage, and the question will not arise, of course, unless the emergency is prolonged; but if a man were held and continued in service for a longer period than he had contracted to serve—hon. Members realise, of course, that the Bill does not come into force for a year because we already have powers—and for which he had enlisted, his right to an increased pension would, I should think, be established.

Mr. Ammon: I should not like the hon. Member to leave the House under the impression that I did not know that the Royal Marines did not come under the Army and Air Forces Act. My question was upon another point.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Captain McEwen.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]

6.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): I should like to use this opportunity to say that we shall meet to-morrow at the usual hour of 2.45 p.m. We shall then consider a business Motion, and a Ways and Means Resolution relating to Import Duties Emergency Provisions. Afterwards we shall take the remaining stages of Measures which have been discussed today and Motions to bring in other essential Bills.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask whether consideration has been given to the time of meeting of the House? The possibility was suggested yesterday of meeting earlier in the day.

Captain Margesson: Yes, consideration has been given to that and discussions have taken place through the usual channels, but it is felt that, for the time being at any rate, it will be as well to adhere to the normal time of meeting,

namely, 2.45. However, I will not say that that is final.

Mr. C. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend any news as to a Thursday sitting?

Captain Margesson: Yes, the House will be sitting.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half after Six o'Clock.